[Federal Register: April 7, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 67)]
[Notices]
[Page 17845-17846]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr07ap06-59]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
[ER-FRL-6674-1]
Environmental Impact Statements and Regulations; Availability of
EPA Comments
Availability of EPA comments repared pursuant to the Environmental
Review Process (ERP), under section 309 of the Clean Air Act and
Section 102(2)(c) of the National Environmental Policy Act as amended.
Requests for copies of EPA comments can be directed to the Office of
Federal Activities at 202-564-7167.
Summary of Rating Definitions
Environmental Impact of the Action
LO--Lack of Objections
The EPA review has not identified any potential environmental
impacts requiring substantive changes to the proposal. The review may
have disclosed opportunities for application of mitigation measures
that could be accomplished with no more than minor changes to the
proposal.
EC--Environmental Concerns
The EPA review has identified environmental impacts that should be
avoided in order to fully protect the environment. Corrective measures
may require changes to the preferred alternative or application of
mitigation measures that can reduce the environmental impact. EPA would
like to work with the lead agency to reduce these impacts.
EO--Environmental Objections
The EPA review has identified significant environmental impacts
that must be avoided in order to provide adequate protection for the
environment. Corrective measures may require substantial changes to the
preferred alternative or consideration of some other project
alternative (including the no action alternative or a new alternative).
EPA intends to work with the lead agency to reduce these impacts.
EU--Environmentally Unsatisfactory
The EPA review has identified adverse environmental impacts that
are of sufficient magnitude that they are unsatisfactory from the
standpoint of public health or welfare or environmental quality. EPA
intends to work with the lead agency to reduce these impacts. If the
potentially unsatisfactory impacts are not corrected at the final EIS
stage, this proposal will be recommended for referral to the CEQ.
Adequacy of the Impact Statement
Category 1--Adequate
EPA believes the draft EIS adequately sets forth the environmental
impact(s) of the preferred alternative and those of the alternatives
reasonably available to the project or action. No further analysis or
data collection is necessary, but the reviewer may suggest the addition
of clarifying language or information.
Category 2--Insufficient Information
The draft EIS does not contain sufficient information for EPA to
fully assess environmental impacts that should be avoided in order to
fully protect the environment, or the EPA reviewer has identified new
reasonably available alternatives that are within the spectrum of
alternatives analyzed in the draft EIS, which could reduce the
environmental impacts of the action. The identified additional
information,
[[Page 17846]]
data, analyses, or discussion should be included in the final EIS.
Category 3--Inadequate
EPA does not believe that the draft EIS adequately assesses
potentially significant environmental impacts of the action, or the EPA
reviewer has identified new, reasonably available alternatives that are
outside of the spectrum of alternatives analyzed in the draft EIS,
which should be analyzed in order to reduce the potentially significant
environmental impacts. EPA believes that the identified additional
information, data, analyses, or discussions are of such a magnitude
that they should have full public review at a draft stage. EPA does not
believe that the draft EIS is adequate for the purposes of the NEPA
and/or Section 309 review, and thus should be formally revised and made
available for public comment in a supplemental or revised draft EIS. On
the basis of the potential significant impacts involved, this proposal
could be a candidate for referral to the CEQ.
Draft EISs
EIS No. 20050530, ERP No. D-FHW-L40229-ID, ID-75 Timmerman to Ketchum--
US-20 to Saddle Road, Increase Roadway and Transportation Safety,
Cities of Bellevue, Hailey, Ketchum and the City of Sun Valley, Blaine
County, ID
Summary: EPA expressed environmental concerns about the aquatic
resources, ecological connectivity, habitat permeability for wildlife,
and air toxic, and is also concerned about the limited range of
alternatives analyzed and the secondary effects of induced travel
demand and land use change. Rating EC2.
EIS No. 20050544, ERP No. D-FHW-E40805-KY, Newtown Pike Extension
Project, Road Connection from West Main Street to South Limestone
Street in Lexington, Fayette County, KY
Summary: EPA expressed environmental concerns about the air quality
impacts, noise impacts, and the adequacy of mitigation for
environmental justice issues. Rating EC2.
EIS No. 20060011, ERP No. D-BLM-J02050-UT, Chapita Wells-Stagecoach
Area Natural Gas Development, Drilling and Production Operations of
Natural Gas Wells and Associated Access Road, and Pipelines, Uintah
County, UT
Summary: EPA expressed environmental concerns about impacts to
riparian areas along the White River and wildlife habitat in specific
locations of the project area, and recommended that the final EIS
should include analysis and comparison of the full range of
alternatives considered. Rating EC2.
EIS No. 20060032, ERP No. D-AFS-L65502-AK, Kuiu Timber Sale Area,
Proposes to Harvest Timer and Build Associated Temporary Roads, US.
Army COE Section 10 and 404 Permits, North Kuiu Island, Petersburg
Ranger District, Tongass National Forest, AK
Summary: EPA expressed environmental concerns about sediment
loading to streams from timber harvesting, and recommended Alternative
2 because it would minimize potential adverse impacts to water quality
and aquatic habitat. Rating EC1.
EIS No. 20060036, ERP No. D-BLM-L65503-OR, North Steens Ecosystem
Restoration Project, To Reduce Juniper-Related Fuels and Restore
Various Plant Communities, Implementation, Andrews Resource Area,
Cooperative Management and Protection Area (CMPA), Harney County, OR
Summary: EPA expressed environmental concerns about impacts to air
quality, water quality and riparian areas, and requested that the above
impacts be avoided and/or mitigated. Rating EC2.
EIS No. 20060038, ERP No. D-BLM-J02051-UT, Greater Deadman Bench Oil
and Gas Producing Region, Proposes to Develop Oil and Gas Resources,
Right-of-Way Grants and Applications for Permit to Drill, Vernal,
Uintah County, UT
Summary: EPA expressed environmental concerns about potential
impacts to riparian areas and wildlife habitat, and recommended that
the final EIS provide a detailed management plan, including mitigation
and monitoring for the duration of the proposed action. Rating EC2.
Final EISs
EIS No. 20060039, ERP No. F-FAA-K51042-AZ, Phoenix Sky Harbor
International Airport (PHX), Construction and Operation of a Terminal,
Airfield and Surface Transportation, City of Phoenix, Maricopa County,
AZ
Summary: EPA does not object to the proposed project but continues
to recommend additional voluntary mitigation measures for construction-
related air emissions.
EIS No. 20060049, ERP No. F-FHW-L40217-AK, South Extension of the
Coastal Trail Project, Extending the existing Tony Knowles Coastal
Trail from Kincaid Park through the Project Area to the Potter Weigh
Station, COE Section 10 and 404 Permits, Municipality of Anchorage,
Anchorage, AK
Summary: EPA does not object to the preferred alternative.
Dated: April 4, 2006.
Robert W. Hargrove,
Director, NEPA Compliance Division, Office of Federal Activities.
[FR Doc. E6-5113 Filed 4-6-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P